GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LTD v CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LTD NO 2 [2018] NZHC 1394

GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LTD v CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LTD NO 2 [2018] NZHC 1394

The application for interim measures was declined because the applicants failed to establish that the harm they alleged was not adequately reparable by an award of damages and failed to show the harm to them would substantially outweigh the harm to the respondent; the applicants' evidence of financial risk was speculative, the practical harm was not quantified, and granting the order risked increasing the respondent's financial exposure and delay.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1394
Parties
First Applicant: Grande Meadow Developments Ltd; Second Applicant: New Zealand General Realestate Ltd; Third Applicant: Kingstone Property Ltd; Respondent: Clark Road Developments Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Measures Under Arbitration Act 1996 Pending Arbitration and Claim for Specific Performance / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Interim Relief)
Outcome
Application for interim measures declined
Legal Topics
Interim Measures, Specific Performance, Infrastructure Cost Sharing Agreements (icsas), Development Cooperation Agreement (dca), Status Quo Injunctions, Balance of Convenience
Arbitration Contract Law Property Law Resource Management Act Matters Equitable Remedies Interim Measures Specific Performance Infrastructure Cost Sharing Agreements (icsas) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grande Meadow Developments Ltd

First Applicant

New Zealand General Realestate Ltd

Second Applicant

Kingstone Property Ltd

Third Applicant

Clark Road Developments Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Measures Under Arbitration Act 1996 Pending Arbitration and Claim for Specific Performance / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim measure under art 17/17A/17B of the Arbitration Act 1996 (incorporating UNCITRAL Model Law) should restrain respondent from applying for s 224(c) certificate
  2. 2 Whether respondent breached DCA by refusing to negotiate ICSAs and by staging development
  3. 3 Whether harm to applicants is not adequately reparable by damages

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim measures was declined because the applicants failed to establish that the harm they alleged was not adequately reparable by an award of damages and failed to show the harm to them would substantially outweigh the harm to the respondent; the applicants' evidence of financial risk was speculative, the practical harm was not quantified, and granting the order risked increasing the respondent's financial exposure and delay.

Court Disposition

Application for interim measures declined

Orders

  • Application for interim measures restraining respondent from applying for s 224(c) certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 is declined